No Bodily Harm (or threat thereof), No Terrorism

[Metacom]

I would have continued this in the original thread, but DtC characterized it as a sidetrack so I'll continue it here, because I think it's an interesting topic. It may be more of a GD; however, what starts in the Pit stays in the Pit.

To put things in context:

Originally Posted by Metacom

So are you saying that the ALF and the ELF aren't terrorist groups ( note that the FBI considers both to be domestic terrorists)? Or are you saying that financially supporting terrorist groups doesn't mean you're affiliated with them?

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The FBI can suck my cock. I don't consider them to be terrorist groups. Have they ever killed anybody?

Originally Posted by Metacom

Would it be fair to say that you believe that bodily harm to a human is a necessary prerequisite for an act to be terrorism?

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Either bodily harm or a threat of bodily harm, yes.

I now reply:

Would you then acknowledge that your personal definition of "terrorism" seems to differ from that of the world at large?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it thus:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The distinguishing feature of terrorism is not that it hurts someone's physical body, but that it uses physical coercion as a means to instill fear in order to influence something. If I were, say, a logger, the threat of having my equipment destroyed and my offices burned down--and thus having my livelyhood taken from me--would be just as powerful as a threat to my person. Why must human bodies be involved for an act to be terrorism, when be nearly any measure violence against property can be just as harmful (with the exception of flat-out killing someone)?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think of terror as physical terror. As literal fear for one's life. Not annoyance at having a coat ruined.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think of terror as physical terror. As literal fear for one's life. Not annoyance at having a coat ruined.

"Having a coat ruined" is not what I'm talking about when I speak of terrorist acts involving property. A fur coat typically isn't a major part of a normal person's identity nor is it an item necessary for their livelyhood. Workplaces, valuable tools, and homes, on the other hand, frequently are an important part of a persons identity or necessary to their livelyhood. Likewise, I think that destroying someone's home or worksite (e.g., the ALF destroying a labratory or the ELF destroying a builder's construction site) is terrorism. If I depended on construction to support my family--to pay for health care, food, shelter, and other necessities--then harm to that which I build would ultimately have the same effect as harm to my person: I would no longer be able to provide for myself or my family or to function in society. The emotions I feel (terror) would not be that different.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's criminal but it doesn't constitute an infliction of physical terror.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's criminal but it doesn't constitute an infliction of physical terror.

I don't believe I've heard the phrase "physical terror," at least when used in a discussion of what constitutes terrorism. Is this an established phrase (not that it's wrong if it isn't, I just don't want to be arguing against a definition the rest of the world regards as correct...)?

To go back to the question I asked in my OP:

Would you then acknowledge that your personal definition of "terrorism" seems to differ from that of the world at large?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No. I think most of the world at large associates the term with physical violence.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

physical violence.

"Physical violence" is a rather redundant phrase, don't you think?

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Metacom

"Physical violence" is a rather redundant phrase, don't you think?

(That was a bit too snarky--sorry. I assume you meant "violent acts against human bodies"?)

[yosemite]

While I think physical (bodily) violence is the first thought that comes to mind when the word "terrorists" is mentioned, I don't think it's exclusively that. When I think "eco-terrorists" I think of people burning buildings, destroying property, etc., to protest or make a political statement. Note that the word "terrorists" is in that term. Once people start doing significant damage for political protest or to "send a message," they start to fit the "Terrorist" definition.

However, my personal definition would mean significant damage. A little bit of splattered paint probably wouldn't be enough. Burning down someone's house or their office building, however, would. You're seriously screwing up someone when you do that, and even though you might not mean to cause bodily harm, you definitely risk it (someone might be in the building that you didn't know about, someone might be harmed trying to put the fire out, etc.).

So no, I don't think that "terrorist" must mean doing physical bodily harm.

[Ludovic]

Yeah, I'd say that if a group were to go around painting people's clothes red, in order to frighten people into a certain act or lack thereof, are engaging in terrorism. They're engendering fear (fear of having one's property defaced,) in order to score political gains.

Now, whether that means it's important enough to lock 'em up in Gitmo for a decade, well, no, just because it's terrorism doesn't mean it's the end of the world.

[betenoir]

Yeah I agree (I mean with Metacom and yosemite). I don't think the hallmark of terrorism is physical violence. It's fear. And the use thereof. If someone threated to...say....unlease a computer virus that would disable every computer sytem in the country if they're demands are not met, that's a terrorist act.

I think the question of whether ALF or ELF are terrorists is...are they performing acts of vandalism in to destroy the specific tools etc. so they can't be used? Or are they trying to instill fear? If the later, they're terrorists. By definition.

Of course we could just solve the whole porblem by calling them freedom fighters.

[danceswithcats]

So in your opinion Dio it's no hurt and no foul to start a fire, plant an incendiary device or otherwise destroy property, correct?

That is a valid definition, because we all know that when things burn or blow up, cops, firefighters, and other people don't respond, and therefore can't possibly be hurt or killed as a result of this social expression.

All the death and injury reports put out by the NFPA and FOP are resultant from benign incidents. Yeh.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I didn't say it was "no foul," I just said it wasn't terrorism.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I didn't say it was "no foul," I just said it wasn't terrorism.

Even when they're done with the intent of instilling an intense, overpowering fear in order to coerce someone?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't think they're trying to instill physical fear, just to sabotage equipment.

[yosemite]

If someone threatened to burn down my house in hopes of coercing me to do something, I'd be pretty terrified. If someone did that to me, they'd be doing it to instill fear in me, and you know what? It would work—it would instill fear in me. Why else would they be doing it?

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't think they're trying to instill physical fear, just to sabotage equipment.

We're not discussing specific cases, we're discussing terrorism in general. If they were trying to instill fear, would it be terrorism?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Metacom

We're not discussing specific cases, we're discussing terrorism in general. If they were trying to instill fear, would it be terrorism?

If they were trying to install a physical fear of bodily harm, then yes I would consider that a threat and I would call it terrorism.

[yosemite]

If they were trying to terrify me by threatening to burn down my house (and having no house would seriously screw me over, so I would be pretty scared), would that be terrorism?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Of course.

[danceswithcats]

Well, it has scared me and lots of other first responders that starting with the Atlanta abortion clinic secondary device, ELF, ALF and other groups have been discussing and publishing information on IEDs. These devices have no purpose other than to kill or injure first responders.

What if you and your family are on their way home, and you don't see the police car responding to an incident, it hits your car and one of your family is killed? Were it not for someone starting that fire, the officer would not have been responding, and you/yours therefore become a direct casualty of that incident.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Yosemite

If they were trying to terrify me by threatening to burn down my house (and having no house would seriously screw me over, so I would be pretty scared), would that be terrorism?

Even if she wasn't gonna be in the house when the burned it down?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That's kind of a far fetched hypothetical.

Cite that ELF or ALF are advocating the use of incendiary devices against human beings.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Metacom

Even if she wasn't gonna be in the house when the burned it down?

Doh! "They," not "the".

I ask because you saying that would be terrorism seems to conflict with your previous statements that bodily harm (or the threat thereof) was a necessary prerequisite for terrorism.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Metacom

Even if she wasn't gonna be in the house when the burned it down?

I would consider burning down an actual household to be an act of terrorism.

[danceswithcats]

FWIW Metacom this is the US DOJ definition: A violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any segment to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Sounds like my definition.

[danceswithcats]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

That's kind of a far fetched hypothetical.

Cite that ELF or ALF are advocating the use of incendiary devices against human beings.

As I said before, we both know that the authorities don't stand around and watch an incident. They become involved, and people get hurt. To say that it was only aimed at property is disingenuous.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Sounds like my definition.

Um, no, it's nothing like your definition.

The first sentence says "a violent act or an act dangerous to human life." An act can be violent without endangering human life. That's probably why their definition lists the two things seperately, and implies that either (but not both) is a necessary prerequisite for terrorism. Yours seems only to include the latter condition (dangerous to human life) with an exemption for "actual households".

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think it's pretty obvious that the definition meant violence directed at humans.

What other kind of violence is there?

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think it's pretty obvious that the definition meant violence directed at humans.

What other kind of violence is there?

You suffer from an acute lack of imagination [/darth vader voice]

[betenoir]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think it's pretty obvious that the definition meant violence directed at humans.

What other kind of violence is there?

Must we resort to the dictionary?

vi·o·lence (P)Pronunciation Key(v-lns)
n.

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor

Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing. Doesn't say anything about who or what the violence is directed against. My mother works in a metal hospital. They have to do write up on patients who have violent outbursts. Doesn't mean they hurt anyone. Could mean they broke a mirror. That's a violent outburst.

All of which is getting away from the point i think, because as i said I don't think the definition of terrorism is about violence, it's about fear. Which doesn't have to be physical.

[danceswithcats]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think it's pretty obvious that the definition meant violence directed at humans.

What other kind of violence is there?

You're being intentionally obtuse. Violence can occur against property. Burning down a construction site at 0300 only directly risks the lives of first responders. Ditto for the SUV dealership, the abortion clinic, and for that matter the church or synagogue.

That said, the act is a message, whether it's don't build, be eco friendly, pro-life, or get your fucking asses out of our town. In addition to being a message, it's a threat, the threat being that if you don't do as we want, the stakes will get higher.

[paperbackwriter]

I think what we have is a difference between terrorism and criminal activity. DtC specifically said tht ALF and ELF's actions were criminal. This is obvious: they violate laws.

Terrorism as used in a political-science context often means use of violence to change the policies or actions of a state, not individuals or corporations. DtC's definition comports with this. The target and aims of the act is the distinguishing factor, not the form of the action.

The original question: "Would you then acknowledge that your personal definition of "terrorism" seems to differ from that of the world at large?" does not have a factual answer. What are we going to do: conduct a world-wide survey where people are asked to choose between different model definitions?

If rephrased to "...your personal definition.....differs from most ordinary Americans?", then the answer is undoubtedly "Yes". There are, however, other groups and contexts where his definition makes perfect sense.

For instance, it is necessary to distinguish between groups tryying to overthrow America from a person pissed at his landlord, correct? Even if both of them blow up an apartment building, the response by law-enforcement to these groups is going to be different.

There is, in fact, a growing problem where laws specifically aimed at foreign terrorists passed after 9-11 are being used for regular law-enforcement uses. This usage twists the definition of terrorist in the opposite direction, to apply it to persons most of us agree are not terrorists.

[Aldebaran]

Why would you only apply it to "foreign"?

If a citizen of a nation tries to destabilize his nation from within then that person is not a terrorist?

[b]DTC[/]
Throwing paint on someone's coat in order to bring a person to modify his behaviour, otherwise again risking to be exposed at such attacks... How do you see that as not trying to instill fear with as goal that the person changes his way of life/behaviour.

Salaam. A

[paperbackwriter]

Because the legislators passing those laws spoke at length about "keeping the terrorists out" and "defending the borders" and other comments that made it clear the legislative intent was to address al-Quaeda and other foreign terrorists, not Timothy McVie. I was speaking about the laws, not the abstract definition.

[Shade]

I think a missing component may be if we agree with their aims. The french resistence meet all the criteria for terrorism listed above, but I wouldn't describe them as 'terrorist' because I think what they did was necessary. (Presumably the government there *would*.) However, I think there's some groups which fall into the gray area of "I agree with their aims, but think the violence they use is wrong as it's too disproportionate," which things like this fall into.